Powered by indifference, focused by caffeine

Archives

All posts for the month May, 2016

So is Star Trek progressive because it doesn’t go in on Nazis, or is that where it fails in its generally progressive tone? If this is a failing, is Star Trek’s greatest strength in just having these conversations so that, 49 years later, we can still talk about it and make it relevant?

“Starting a conversation” is often the pretext desperately grasped when a career based on being inflammatory starts sinking; is Star Trek any different?

This is not surprising. You ever hear folks say, “people are so stupid” or “some people shouldn’t be allowed to breed” or “This country is becoming Idiocracy?” This is where it ends. The idea is that democracy, representative government, and freedom are only for, as Tina Fey so effectively put it, “some parts of America.”

Some of us treat education as a multiple-choice question, overlook the economic inequalities of primary school education, reward media outlets that reduce the world the complexity of Star Wars, and then sit there and claim the other guy is too ignorant to vote.

If you think the ignorant folks are the ones who don’t make the same decisions or decisions the same way we do, then you are the ignoramus.

Bonus Round: Just like saying “I’m not a homophobe but…” isn’t a magical spell to make the homophobic thing you’re about to say not homophobic, saying “Jim Crow is bad but” does not make your endorsement of a return to Jim Crow not an endorsement of a return to Jim Crow.

If you think people are too stupid to vote, but you think those same people can objectively exclude individuals from voting based on merit, then you are operating under a number of faulty assumptions, or you already know the people you wanna exclude are already outside of the existing power structure.

Derek and I finally find an answer as to why Commodore Wesley is such a jerk. I’m satisfied with it, honestly. Also, I sincerely apologize for not slipping in a “shut up Wesley.” I am so, so sorry.

Are we wrong in not taking Kirk’s side on this thing? If Kirk isn’t necessary, he’s not necessary. Star Trek validates the arbitrary nature of fulfilling our dreams (like starship captain), but on the other hand, the only reason the M-5 isn’t a good captain is because it…doesn’t work right? Is the message that anything complicated enough to replace a human role as demanding as starship captain must also have human foibles?